I remember that discussion, but I thought the discussion on the table then
was about having to explicitly reveal values inside a method (I think
that's why the term "reveal" was bandied about, that is, to make it
explicit that it wasn't just for returning values from methods), not about
just having a return-like thing. If it's that, then we have a new point of
debate here. If not, then, well, it's a year and a half since we last
discussed this, and maybe it's time to reexamine the issue.
-dan
Mark S. Miller writes:
>At 11:43 AM Thursday 4/12/01, Dan Bornstein wrote:
>>Okay, then, here's possibly a better way to state the proposal:
>>>> Every method definition should have an implicit binding of the
>> identifier "return" to an escape function which, if called, returns
>> from the method with the given value, and there should not be any
>> implicit return value from a method (that is, falling off the end
>> of a *method*--not just any block--is tantamount to returning null).
>>Well, it's certainly a better way to state this, as I didn't even understand
>that you were proposing this. In any case, isn't this one of the proposals
>we considered and rejected back in the unary-^ discussions? (Rooted
>http://www.eros-os.org/~majordomo/e-lang/0844.html ,
>http://www.eros-os.org/~majordomo/e-lang/0895.html , and
>http://www.eros-os.org/~majordomo/e-lang/0969.html .)